I thought the MPAA was completely non-transparent in its rulings/decision unlike the BBFC? And that films still get butchered to avoid the commercial death of a dodgy rating?

quote:

And yet there hasn't been any such censorship in the US in about 40 years

One can only assume complete avoidance of all news media. The US fines networks and scares the hell out of broadcasters because Janet Jackson has a costume 'slip-up'. Very liberal

The US seems to deal with things in a far more underhand manner. Good example - Battle Royale. It's not actually banned - but it might as well have been.

Nice try.

One can only assume you don't know the difference between regulation of commercial television and...well, everything else: cable, theatrical, DVD, etc. Not at all the same thing, sorry. And I seem to remember a big ridiculous brouhaha in your fine country over a prank call about banging a man's granddaughter. Was the "controversy" over that any less absurd and out of proportion? Uhm, no.

The point is, short of actual illegal material like kiddie porn and snuff films (if they existed), you are free to own any piece of "entertainment" you care to in the US. Including this piece of trash.

And yet there hasn't been any such censorship in the US in about 40 years.

How does that work?

Having seen "this film is not yet rated" ild rather keep the BBFC system if its all the same.

Once again, moot point. Nothing here is ever BANNED. There's a difference between not getting an MPAA rating and being BANNED. Also, everything in that movie is no longer an issue because when Jack Valenti died a year later the MPAA was completely revamped and is now a much different animal and extremely transparent.

Have you noticed there haven't been any filmmakers complaining about them lately?

Not quite 40 years it seems. In part it seems primarily because of the local jurisidictions enacting their own rules. Technically local councils can refuse to allow films to be shown here as well I think, although historically this has also been used to show films otherwise censored by the BBFC.

It also ignores the pre-censorship of films to enable them to meet the secretive rules of MPAA guidelines for commercial purposes.

I thought the MPAA was completely non-transparent in its rulings/decision unlike the BBFC? And that films still get butchered to avoid the commercial death of a dodgy rating?

quote:

And yet there hasn't been any such censorship in the US in about 40 years

One can only assume complete avoidance of all news media. The US fines networks and scares the hell out of broadcasters because Janet Jackson has a costume 'slip-up'. Very liberal

The US seems to deal with things in a far more underhand manner. Good example - Battle Royale. It's not actually banned - but it might as well have been.

Nice try.

One can only assume you don't know the difference between regulation of commercial television and...well, everything else: cable, theatrical, DVD, etc. Not at all the same thing, sorry. And I seem to remember a big ridiculous brouhaha in your fine country over a prank call about banging a man's granddaughter. Was the "controversy" over that any less absurd and out of proportion? Uhm, no.

The point is, short of actual illegal material like kiddie porn and snuff films (if they existed), you are free to own any piece of "entertainment" you care to in the US. Including this piece of trash.

So...we win on that particular freedom front.

Not really....you still have films that are cut for home entertainment purposes. Serbian Film, Battle Royale, Basic Instinct for random examples have been released edited and uncut in various ways. But while these are online, you cant go into the shops and buy them at your local Wallmart as they wont stock them based on certain ratings.

Over here if its not hardcore porn, if it passes a BBFC certificate it can get sold anywhere from supermarkets to garages.

Oh and the incident you've mentioned had nothing to do with censorship but listeners actually complaining about the show, listeners who pay a licence fee and have a right to say if they dont like what they hear. The media onslaught afterwards was the fall out of it.

_____________________________

http://dereksdontrunfilms.blogspot.co.uk/

"You bailed out a Jamaican street named Monkey the other day, I want him. This other piece of shit, Screwface, I want him. I know you're a scumbag and a puke, I don't mind that, but give me what I need and I'll leave here a nice guy. If you don't, I'm gonna fuck you up. "

That's brand new right there. LOL. That's something they cut of "Singin' In The Rain"....

But seriously, isn't it silly that such censorship exists in the UK in 2011? Don't rate it, don't put in any big theatre chains, but making it illegal to own?? Really?? I thought you guys were so liberal and enlightened and America was full of backwards religious freaks and puritans. And yet there hasn't been any such censorship in the US in about 40 years.

How does that work?

Difference with us is that, to be blunt...sex and sexuality is fine. Violence has its limits.

The US...Violence is perfectly fine. Sex isnt as much.

While we have clear guidelines...yours is muddled.

Oh and we can say "cunt" on TV without paying subscription fees for cable shows.

Wow, you got me on that last point. Surely the sign of a much more civilized society.

I won't argue that there is a puritanical streak in many Americans, but considering we are the porn capital of the world it can't be that bad. And all this is beside the point: no movie gets banned for explicit sexuality OR violence here. It just goes without a rating and has a more difficult time getting distributed.

That's just semantics - call it what you will it comes down to whether or not you can pop to the local fleapit and see the film.

When you can't it's because a bunch of secretive unaccountable 'experts' have passed a rating without being open about the decision or the process or a system that sees films 'not picking up distribution deals' or being cut upfront to get a rating.

Here it's an open and accountable body who are completely transparent in the publication of their decisions.

And yet there hasn't been any such censorship in the US in about 40 years.

How does that work?

Having seen "this film is not yet rated" ild rather keep the BBFC system if its all the same.

Once again, moot point. Nothing here is ever BANNED. There's a difference between not getting an MPAA rating and being BANNED. Also, everything in that movie is no longer an issue because when Jack Valenti died a year later the MPAA was completely revamped and is now a much different animal and extremely transparent.

Have you noticed there haven't been any filmmakers complaining about them lately?

But you have different laws in different states, what can be shown in one state can be banned in another. You also have local ran theatre chains. We dont. Then there's the whole supermarket/entertainment centre home video buying that has different laws based on the owners of said store and distributors.

We dont that and have a governing body that covers and regulates but only has legal right for home video. Theatrical certificates are guidelines local councils and multiplexes follow...but they can chose not to follow them which they rarely do.

Case in point - screenings of Texas Chainsaw Masacre when it was "banned" and changing the certificate of Spiderman most recently so kids could see it.

_____________________________

http://dereksdontrunfilms.blogspot.co.uk/

"You bailed out a Jamaican street named Monkey the other day, I want him. This other piece of shit, Screwface, I want him. I know you're a scumbag and a puke, I don't mind that, but give me what I need and I'll leave here a nice guy. If you don't, I'm gonna fuck you up. "

Is it actually illegal to own these films in the UK, or is it just illegal for them to be sold/distributed/broadcast? It seems a bit unlikely you'd get fined or go to jail for owning a piece of fiction.

Also, lol at the notion of America being a paragon of liberalism. My mum was there a couple of weeks ago and it was illegal to buy a beer on a Sunday in the state she was in. I'll take fractionally stricter movie censorship over that shit any day

That's just semantics - call it what you will it comes down to whether or not you can pop to the local fleapit and see the film.

When you can't it's because a bunch of secretive unaccountable 'experts' have passed a rating without being open about the decision or the process or a system that sees films 'not picking up distribution deals' or being cut upfront to get a rating.

Here it's an open and accountable body who are completely transparent in the publication of their decisions.

I have no difficulty in choosing the system I prefer.

Doesn't make it any easier to swallow (maybe a bad word to use on this particular case) that you are being told by your government that you are not adult enough to choose for yourself and need to be protected.

Is it actually illegal to own these films in the UK, or is it just illegal for them to be sold/distributed/broadcast? It seems a bit unlikely you'd get fined or go to jail for owning a piece of fiction.

Also, lol at the notion of America being a paragon of liberalism. My mum was there a couple of weeks ago and it was illegal to buy a beer on a Sunday in the state she was in. I'll take fractionally stricter movie censorship over that shit any day

Your Mom must have been in the deep South, my friend.

Where I think they just buy their beers on every other day of the week...and then DRINK them on Sunday.

That's brand new right there. LOL. That's something they cut of "Singin' In The Rain"....

But seriously, isn't it silly that such censorship exists in the UK in 2011? Don't rate it, don't put in any big theatre chains, but making it illegal to own?? Really?? I thought you guys were so liberal and enlightened and America was full of backwards religious freaks and puritans. And yet there hasn't been any such censorship in the US in about 40 years.

How does that work?

Difference with us is that, to be blunt...sex and sexuality is fine. Violence has its limits.

The US...Violence is perfectly fine. Sex isnt as much.

While we have clear guidelines...yours is muddled.

Oh and we can say "cunt" on TV without paying subscription fees for cable shows.

Wow, you got me on that last point. Surely the sign of a much more civilized society.

I won't argue that there is a puritanical streak in many Americans, but considering we are the porn capital of the world it can't be that bad. And all this is beside the point: no movie gets banned for explicit sexuality OR violence here. It just goes without a rating and has a more difficult time getting distributed.

And surely, this THC2 banning is referring to SEXUAL violence.

Face it. You guys have censors and we don't.

Well...no, not really, it just shows a double standards. Blowing some guys brains out is fine on TV but saying a swear word isnt. Which also brings in the porn factor which is again double standards...porn capital of the world but films like Basic Instinct for a vague example was NC-17 rated, unable to be sold in supermarkets, and would have had limited theatrical release and causes a fuss.

You guys have censorship...you just dont like the word, confuse it and allow different states to have different rules and views and things to a point where you say.."we have no censorship"

You can say "we can get anything here" but you cant really, its all limited releases if it gets shown without any cuts. Its basically just like us saying...lets import the film over on DVD.

_____________________________

http://dereksdontrunfilms.blogspot.co.uk/

"You bailed out a Jamaican street named Monkey the other day, I want him. This other piece of shit, Screwface, I want him. I know you're a scumbag and a puke, I don't mind that, but give me what I need and I'll leave here a nice guy. If you don't, I'm gonna fuck you up. "

That's just semantics - call it what you will it comes down to whether or not you can pop to the local fleapit and see the film.

When you can't it's because a bunch of secretive unaccountable 'experts' have passed a rating without being open about the decision or the process or a system that sees films 'not picking up distribution deals' or being cut upfront to get a rating.

Here it's an open and accountable body who are completely transparent in the publication of their decisions.

I have no difficulty in choosing the system I prefer.

Doesn't make it any easier to swallow (maybe a bad word to use on this particular case) that you are being told by your government that you are not adult enough to choose for yourself and need to be protected.

That would make me angry and would seem to be none of their business.

But to each his own.

No, because you go out and you can find what you're looking for elsewhere just like in the US...you just widen the pool

The only difference is that we cant go to the local store and pick the film up easily. We'll have to order it from amazon for example.

You're confusing and making the point that the whole of America has this anti-censorship law...which it doesnt.

_____________________________

http://dereksdontrunfilms.blogspot.co.uk/

"You bailed out a Jamaican street named Monkey the other day, I want him. This other piece of shit, Screwface, I want him. I know you're a scumbag and a puke, I don't mind that, but give me what I need and I'll leave here a nice guy. If you don't, I'm gonna fuck you up. "

Here's the line from the article: "This means that the DVD cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK."

There is NO. SUCH. BANNING. IN. THE. USA.

You can go on and on about the MPAA and how films can't get a rating or they can't get distribution or they go without a rating and they can't get an ad in a certain newspaper...none of this MAKES IT ILLEGAL to buy a certain film.

There's a subtle distinction there. LOL.

I never said there wasnt, but there is censorship in the US and the censorship in the US is muddled and confusing so you cant say one is better than the other. Im a fan of the unrated DVD's released in the states, its a good move.

But as pointed out before in regards to our system...you'll be unable to buy the film in local stores, supermarkets etc anywhere that sells DVD's etc will not be able to sell a un-certificated film in the UK.

BUT...you can import them as a customer not as a retailer. It is not illegal to buy a non certificated film another source outside the UK as a customer. You dont get prosecuted for owning it, you dont go to jail. It just stops retailers selling the film.

We just have censorship regulator across the whole country with clear guidelines. You pass those guidelines you get full distribution. In the US, you skip the regulator, you get less distribution. A film is banned in Texas but free in LA...you go to LA to watch it etc but as the country is so big, you cant regulate it.

Swings and roundabouts. But end of the day, there's still ways of getting hold of films nowdays with or without regulations. You may not be banning films, but states do impose their own laws. We have the 1 law that govern the whole thing.

< Message edited by kenada_woo -- 6/6/2011 11:31:11 PM >

_____________________________

http://dereksdontrunfilms.blogspot.co.uk/

"You bailed out a Jamaican street named Monkey the other day, I want him. This other piece of shit, Screwface, I want him. I know you're a scumbag and a puke, I don't mind that, but give me what I need and I'll leave here a nice guy. If you don't, I'm gonna fuck you up. "

Here's the line from the article: "This means that the DVD cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK."

There is NO. SUCH. BANNING. IN. THE. USA.

You can go on and on about the MPAA and how films can't get a rating or they can't get distribution or they go without a rating and they can't get an ad in a certain newspaper...none of this MAKES IT ILLEGAL to buy a certain film.

There's a subtle distinction there. LOL.

I never said there wasnt, but there is censorship in the US and the censorship in the US is muddled and confusing.

As pointed out before...you'll be unable to buy the film in local stores, supermarkets etc anywhere that sells DVD's etc will not be able to sell a un-certificated film in the UK.

BUT...you can import them as a customer not as a retailer. It is not illegal to buy a non certificated film another source outside the UK as a customer. You dont get prosecuted for owning it, you dont go to jail. It just stops retailers selling the film.

We just have censorship regulator across the whole country with clear guidelines. You pass those guidelines you get full distribution. In the US, you skip the regulator, you get less distribution. A film is banned in Texas but free in LA...you go to LA to watch it etc but as the country is so big, you cant regulate it.

Swings and roundabouts. But end of the day, there's still ways of getting hold of films nowdays with or without regulations. You may not be banning films, but states do impose their own laws. We have the 1 law that govern the whole thing.

If a private business decides not to carry a film because it doesn't meet their "standards" or whatever, that is not the equivalent of a government body ruling the sale of that film illegal.

But I give up...I made my point as best I could.

I get that you can still buy the films from outside the country and I understand that nobody will bang your door down and take you away in handcuffs. I just think it's an archaic practice, that's my opinion. It shouldn't be this board's business whether you decide to buy a terrible film about people crapping on each other or sandblasting their penis.

Here's the line from the article: "This means that the DVD cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK."

There is NO. SUCH. BANNING. IN. THE. USA.

You can go on and on about the MPAA and how films can't get a rating or they can't get distribution or they go without a rating and they can't get an ad in a certain newspaper...none of this MAKES IT ILLEGAL to buy a certain film.

There's a subtle distinction there. LOL.

I never said there wasnt, but there is censorship in the US and the censorship in the US is muddled and confusing.

As pointed out before...you'll be unable to buy the film in local stores, supermarkets etc anywhere that sells DVD's etc will not be able to sell a un-certificated film in the UK.

BUT...you can import them as a customer not as a retailer. It is not illegal to buy a non certificated film another source outside the UK as a customer. You dont get prosecuted for owning it, you dont go to jail. It just stops retailers selling the film.

We just have censorship regulator across the whole country with clear guidelines. You pass those guidelines you get full distribution. In the US, you skip the regulator, you get less distribution. A film is banned in Texas but free in LA...you go to LA to watch it etc but as the country is so big, you cant regulate it.

Swings and roundabouts. But end of the day, there's still ways of getting hold of films nowdays with or without regulations. You may not be banning films, but states do impose their own laws. We have the 1 law that govern the whole thing.

If a private business decides not to carry a film because it doesn't meet their "standards" or whatever, that is not the equivalent of a government body ruling the sale of that film illegal.

But I give up...I made my point as best I could.

I get that you can still buy the films from outside the country and I understand that nobody will bang your door down and take you away in handcuffs. I just think it's an archaic practice, that's my opinion. It shouldn't be this board's business whether you decide to buy a terrible film about people crapping on each other or sandblasting their penis.

But hey, we're all cousins here...

I've edited me post before, bud, because I do admire the home video aspects of the US releases and how you can have them unrated etc.

But its probably because we've/I've grew up in with the laws that I do think its right to have them in place. I used to be a against them and I do believe in having the right to view whatever you like.

But I also feel there has to be some regulations. And if they've got their set rules and convey their point across as to why, which they have done with this film, then I can understand as to why. Then that debate comes in. They have the same guidlines for every film both theatrical and video release, so theres at least some continuity.

But nowdays, as its easier to purchase anything online...it seems a bit of a non-debate and the only people losing out are the films distributors themselves who cant get their film sold or even sold widely. Our censors have shut the door on me going to the local DVD store and buying it....so I'll try the other door and order it online etc.

Its a dead debate nowdays IMO

< Message edited by kenada_woo -- 6/6/2011 11:40:12 PM >

_____________________________

http://dereksdontrunfilms.blogspot.co.uk/

"You bailed out a Jamaican street named Monkey the other day, I want him. This other piece of shit, Screwface, I want him. I know you're a scumbag and a puke, I don't mind that, but give me what I need and I'll leave here a nice guy. If you don't, I'm gonna fuck you up. "

But nowdays, as its easier to purchase anything online...it seems a bit of a non-debate and the only people losing out are the films distributors themselves who cant get their film sold or even sold widely.

Fair point. The internet trumps everything - and makes anyone trying to control people look foolish.

What year did you see THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974) and how did you see it?

Must have been 98-99 when it got a proper theatre release over here hahaha. I was doing work experience at a cinema LOL

But the story of that film and its censorship in the UK is another one of those tussles with the local authority and the BBFC. Its was release for a whole year in London before being pulled and then re-released and pulled again.

Im not too sure if it ever was given a very brief video release on batamax before the video nasties stuff kicked in (my uncle had batamax versions of Evil Dead and The Exorcist that I saw years later hehe) but it was never released on home video till 2000 although it was shown on TV in that year.

Very strange but fun. haha

< Message edited by kenada_woo -- 6/6/2011 11:48:38 PM >

_____________________________

http://dereksdontrunfilms.blogspot.co.uk/

"You bailed out a Jamaican street named Monkey the other day, I want him. This other piece of shit, Screwface, I want him. I know you're a scumbag and a puke, I don't mind that, but give me what I need and I'll leave here a nice guy. If you don't, I'm gonna fuck you up. "

The Human Centipede has no rape, no sexual abuse, and no extremely graphic scenes. It's about one mad scientist's idea. It's a modern day Frankenstein movie. Since you haven't seen it and don't want to, let me spoil the ending: The most graphic scene in the movie is when the mad scientist gets shot in the head. That's right, the bad guy even dies in the end.

If you read the BBFC synopsis apparently the second one does, that's why they feel it is inappropriate. I really enjoyed the first one, this sounds like it's going the way of the Saw franchise, all shock no substance. Pity.

Canadian? They banned a Freddy Krueger blood pack figure, or so Robert Englund told me when he signed it. (Name drop ahoy!) ;)

What year did you see THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974) and how did you see it?

Must have been 98-99 when it got a proper theatre release over here hahaha. I was doing work experience at a cinema LOL

But the story of that film and its censorship in the UK is another one of those tussles with the local authority and the BBFC. Its was release for a whole year in London before being pulled and then re-released and pulled again.

Im not too sure if it ever was given a very brief video release on batamax before the video nasties stuff kicked in (my uncle had batamax versions of Evil Dead and The Exorcist that I saw years later hehe) but it was never released on home video till 2000 although it was shown on TV in that year.

Very strange but fun. haha

Interesting.

Well, it took me until 1982 to see it but that's just because I'm a chickenshit. That's a whole other subject. When I did I thought it was a raggedy horror masterpiece - which, as mentioned, has very little actual gore.

What's weird about the R rating? In the states, they have R and NC-17 (which some theaters won't play). I prefer "Unrated" myself because even NC-17 can be censored. But some movies like Anti-Christ I was surprised even got NC-17 (thought it should've been Unrated because it was so explicit). R is for movies with violence, swearing, sex, or all of the above. NC-17 is for excessive amounts of those, and Unrated is for movies like Peter Jackson's Dead Alive --- which is just RIDICULOUS with gore (and an awesome movie).

I believe you'll find its called Braindead amongst normal people.

The ratings system in the states is pretty stupid and very unbalanced. You can take a 5 year old in to an R rated film, NC-17's are virtually banned in most multiplex chains. Language, blasphemous and sexual images are considered worse than extreme violence... And what is the point in Unrated, other than having an alternative to the NC-17? If so then what's the point of the NC-17?

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts And I looked and behold, a pale horse And his name that sat on him was Death And Hell followed with him.

I'm surprised by the large number of posts advocating the censorship of a movie solely because they don't like the subject matter. This website/forum is dedicated to film and surely any film censored in its entirety should be lamented, especially if the same film passes the the censors in different countries. If you find the subject matter too much for you then here's an idea, don't watch it, don't let your children watch it, but surely all the other adults should have the right to make that decision for themselves.

1. Not many people like HC. 2.Canadians are mean. 3. No one likes the Director of HC. 4. RAPE IS NOT GOOD OR FUNNY!. 5. A Serbian Film is pretty darn horrrible. 6. The BBFC are good at their jobs to a degree. 7. Most people on here won't be watching HC2 anytime soon. 8. Most people on here don't want to watch HC2. 9. Some people will create an account just to moan about a film that they are not intrested in anyway and will never see, Yet they do know everything about both film and director.

So what have we learned from this thread? 1. Not many people like HC. 2.Canadians are mean. 3. No one likes the Director of HC. 4. RAPE IS NOT GOOD OR FUNNY!. 5. A Serbian Film is pretty darn horrrible. 6. The BBFC are good at their jobs to a degree. 7. Most people on here won't be watching HC2 anytime soon. 8. Most people on here don't want to watch HC2.

Thank you

All of which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the topic of censorship.

So what have we learned from this thread? 1. Not many people like HC. 2.Canadians are mean. 3. No one likes the Director of HC. 4. RAPE IS NOT GOOD OR FUNNY!. 5. A Serbian Film is pretty darn horrrible. 6. The BBFC are good at their jobs to a degree. 7. Most people on here won't be watching HC2 anytime soon. 8. Most people on here don't want to watch HC2.

Thank you

All of which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the topic of censorship.

This is very true, But the topic is about HC2 being banned of which I have stated what everyone is going on about. But is it not odd that out of all the recent movie news (last Harry Potter film, new Bain pic etc etc), It's HC2 getting the most replys. God bless the BBFC, they are better then they were in the 80's, and thats about it really.

Why does the BBFC have such a big problem with headbutts? Peter Pan and The Matrix both had cuts made to them for this reason, and the cut version of Peter Pan is the one that went through to the rest of Europe and Australia. Annoying.

ORIGINAL: Squidward Hark Bugle Why does the BBFC have such a big problem with headbutts?Peter Pan and The Matrix both had cuts made to them for this reason, and the cut version of Peter Pan is the one that went through to the rest of Europe and Australia. Annoying.

Something to do with 80's football hooligans. And Glasgow.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts And I looked and behold, a pale horse And his name that sat on him was Death And Hell followed with him.